A powerful Mexico (brainstorming)

Tetsu

A little teaser from a timeline I hope to flesh out and post soon. It's a map of the world in 1915 (definately subject to change substantially)- I just made it to stir some thoughts of my own.

knownothing5xk.gif


The POD, I think, has to do with a scandal early in Mexico's independence when Augustin de Iturbide agreed to fully compensate the Spanish landlord's vast lands as they fled back to Spain, leaving Mexico's economy devastated before it was even independent. (Even gold church bells had to be melted down.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_de_Iturbide

This gives Iturbide's regime much more support, as well as a much better-off economy. He holds power until a suitable European monarch is found to take the Mexican throne, which could happen in maybe a year or two years?

As for where it goes from there, it gets a little blurry. I'm thinking a war between the USA and Mexico (possibly Britain as well) leaves the USA without a Pacific coast (yet in control of Texas, maybe a stalemate?).

Any comments, suggestions? Should I keep going?
 

Tetsu

corourke said:
It seems strange to me that a strong Mexico wouldn't have Texas, especially with a POD that early.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it did to me too. Stranger things have happened though- or like I said, it could just be that the Mexican-American War turned into a stalemate, or the USA sued for peace before the going got very bad. Perhaps a British entry into the war prompted this. Mexico got to keep California and the rest, but they decided to give up Texas as a way to end the war quickly.

I don't know. All I know is that I have interesting plans for Texas later (much later) that I don't want to give away yet.

The development of the United States, I think, will go a lot differently. I'm trying to find a way to avoid the Civil War- perhaps some hardcore Unionists like Daniel Webster could end up being President.
 

Straha

Banned
have you considered having the US take over/buy cuba in the 1850's as a way to compromise with the slave states?
 

Wendell

I definitely like it over all, particularly the success of France within Europe. Also, Central America is well, interesting.
 

PoorBoy

Hmm...the Mexicans seem to get a hold of Eastern New Guinea, but not the Philippines...strange. I wonder who owns the rest of the Western Pacific Islands, Spain (until 1898 in OTL), or Mexico? Or are they fighting a war over who's in control?
 

Tetsu

Straha said:
have you considered having the US take over/buy cuba in the 1850's as a way to compromise with the slave states?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure they would certainly try, but obviously wouldn't be too successful.

Honestly, with no Pacific coast (and therefore California), I think it may be fairly easy to create a compromise between the North and South. The slavery issue only really got out of hand when people started fighting over whether it should expand- and here there isn't really anywhere to expand to. I think that the Northern half of the country will be free, and the southern half slave. Slavery will probably die slowly by 1880 or so.

PoorBoy said:
Hmm...the Mexicans seem to get a hold of Eastern New Guinea, but not the Philippines...strange. I wonder who owns the rest of the Western Pacific Islands, Spain (until 1898 in OTL), or Mexico? Or are they fighting a war over who's in control?
Click to expand...

Like I said, most everything outside of North American in the map is subject to change, it was just something I drew up to get ideas flowing- although it's probably at least fairly accurate. I was looking for a place to give Mexico a colony- and since Germany doesn't exist in this timeline, I gave them a colony that went to them OTL. Just an idea.

Wendell said:
Portugal would not call its possession "Ghana." Try the name "Costa Dorada."
Click to expand...

That sounds good. It was just something I put down.
 

Wendell

tetsu-katana said:
Well, I'm sure they would certainly try, but obviously wouldn't be too successful.

Honestly, with no Pacific coast (and therefore California), I think it may be fairly easy to create a compromise between the North and South. The slavery issue only really got out of hand when people started fighting over whether it should expand- and here there isn't really anywhere to expand to. I think that the Northern half of the country will be free, and the southern half slave. Slavery will probably die slowly by 1880 or so.



Like I said, most everything outside of North American in the map is subject to change, it was just something I drew up to get ideas flowing- although it's probably at least fairly accurate. I was looking for a place to give Mexico a colony- and since Germany doesn't exist in this timeline, I gave them a colony that went to them OTL. Just an idea.



That sounds good. It was just something I put down.
Click to expand...
I understand. It's hard to build backwards.
 

Tetsu

Wendell said:
I understand. It's hard to build backwards.
Click to expand...

Very true. I wish I was working from the ground up, but honestly, I'm really just trying to write a timeline around a story idea- but the story takes place in the '50s.

Hopefully it should work out.
 

Faeelin

Banned
tetsu-katana said:
AThis gives Iturbide's regime much more support, as well as a much better-off economy. He holds power until a suitable European monarch is found to take the Mexican throne, which could happen in maybe a year or two years?
Click to expand...

Would a more stable Mexico necessarily be that much richer?

I'm thinking of Brazil, which was relatively stable; yet its economy didn't grow that much either.
 

Tetsu

Faeelin said:
Would a more stable Mexico necessarily be that much richer?

I'm thinking of Brazil, which was relatively stable; yet its economy didn't grow that much either.
Click to expand...

No, it's the other way around. Mexico is financially better off from the start, which I would imagine would make it stabler.

Also, I believe it will be fairly close with Britain, who will undoubtedly support it's modernization- as a way to balance the United States- perhaps as an extension of their European policies to the North American continent?
 

Tetsu

Floid said:
Just a nitpick: Why's it called Spanish Sudan when it doesn't cover any bit of Sudan?
Click to expand...

"Sudan" comes for the Arabic for "land of the blacks"- bilâd as-sûdân. Sudan also has a larger meaning as a part of the Sahel, a kind of buffer region between the arid Sahara and the more fertile sub-Saharan Africa, which the Spanish holdings straddle. In this sense, Sudan is a much larger region than the country that has it's name today.

Also, let's just say that in this timeline, "Sudan" has come to be a synonym for the Sahara because of the different colonial administrations.

Also, Mali, a country quite far away from Sudan, was called French Sudan by the colonial administration in our timeline.
 

Straha

Banned
Why would it take so long? I'd imagine that with only texas as a new slave state and no takeover of cuba that the slave states owuld be outnumbered in the1860's1870's or is 1880's the date of final naitonwide abolition?
 

Tetsu

Straha said:
Why would it take so long? I'd imagine that with only texas as a new slave state and no takeover of cuba that the slave states owuld be outnumbered in the1860's1870's or is 1880's the date of final naitonwide abolition?
Click to expand...

Well, as for the slavery issue, I think the slave/free states would be pretty evenly distributed- with not much hope of expansion. In other words, they could carry on half-slave half-free for a while. But I think the agreement will be a sort of gradual abolition plan adopted in the early 1860's, with the final abolition, like you said, about twenty years after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top